backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 112 comment(s) - last by Moritz.. on Jan 7 at 7:26 PM

Let there be (reflected) light! Scientists get a peak at the atmosphere of a giant extra-solar planet

Hot on the heels of a recent DailyTech blog post concerning finding habitable exoplanets, a group of astronomers comprised of professor Svetlana Berdyugina of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich and Andrei Berdyugin and Vilppu Piirola of the Tuorla Observatory at the University of Turku in Finland observed light reflected from the atmosphere of a planet orbiting a star approximately 60 light years from Earth.

The star and planet under scrutiny are known as HD189733 and HD189733b, respectively. The exoplanet was discovered in 2005 by Doppler spectroscopy. Astronomers were to infer the duration of orbital cycles and the probable size of a planet via Doppler spectroscopy, but hard data like orbital orientation and physical composition are much more difficult. Previous findings likened the planet to a hot Jupiter, orbiting very close to its star.

The astronomers used the 60cm KVA telescope, which resides in La Palma, Spain, by remote control to make their observations. The telescope is operated by Tuorla observatory by agreement with the Royal Swedish Academy of Science to which it belongs, and was modernized by Finnish scientists.

Rather than directly observing the light reflected from the planet's atmosphere, the group used a method similar to polarized glasses. Extraneous light was filtered from other sources and the reflection of HD189733's light from the atmosphere of HD189733b became visible, similar to the way we observe the sun's light reflecting off the surface of the moon.

The light reflected from HD189733b indicates that the atmosphere surrounding the planet is considerably larger than the planet itself, in the area of 30% or more, probably due to the heat of orbiting so closely to its star. Other data gathered seems to allude to the atmosphere being made up of very small particles such as atoms, molecules, tiny grains of dust and possibly water vapor. An atmosphere of this composition would effectively scatter blue light in the same way as Earth's.

The group has published their observations in a paper titled First Detection of Polarized Scattered Light From an Exoplanetary Atmosphere (PDF).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Huh.
By AntiV6 on 12/28/2007 6:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Only 60 light years? That is Suprising, seeing as how everything seems too be millions of light years away from us.

I wonder if anything could be sent there in my or my families lifetimes.




RE: Huh.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/28/2007 7:02:02 PM , Rating: 3
Unless someone decides to increase the speed of light, not likely.


RE: Huh.
By mmntech on 12/28/2007 7:11:28 PM , Rating: 5
Anything is possible. Probably not in our lifetimes though.


RE: Huh.
By Hippiekiller on 12/28/2007 7:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's almost hard to believe that 670 million miles per hour seems so slow on a cosmic scale.

I wouldn't be surprised if its absolutely impossible for any living creature to create a transportation device that can match the speed of light, let alone exceed it.

What do you guys think?


RE: Huh.
By xxeonn on 12/28/2007 7:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would think so. Useing the theory of Warp we would not need to exceed the speed of light but to bend the space time whatever its called.


RE: Huh.
By MadMaster on 12/28/2007 8:01:18 PM , Rating: 3
There is A LOT of speculation and not a lot of evidence.

In other words, it's going to be a long time.


RE: Huh.
By hobbes7869 on 12/29/2007 10:17:18 AM , Rating: 5
Never will we exceed it, as a given beginning mass increased in speed, so to does its actual mass, as well as the energy needed to continually increase, as you approach the speed of light, the mass is approaching infinite mass and the energy required to continually increase the speed is approaching the infinite level. Now, some scientists believe that quantum physics will revel that there are ways around this, such as bending space time, discovery of parallel universes (multiverses) etc. But at this time, none of this has been proven. An interesting book for you to read is Brief History of Time (Stephen Hawking)


RE: Huh.
By Davelo on 12/29/2007 6:58:23 PM , Rating: 1
Luckily not everybody is as closed minded as you. Yes, one day faster than light communication (and travel) will become a reality, if we don't kill ourselves first.

But we are only witnessing the beginning of a great exploration. In the years to come many new planets will be discovered. We will find out one day that Earth is not so unique.


RE: Huh.
By Spoelie on 12/30/2007 9:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
Regretfully a lot of people are as gullible as you. Yes, a device of mass (rocket, ...) will never exceed or even reach the speed of light, as explained. This is fact. Bending of time and space is the only possible way to go faster, but it would not really be going physically faster.


RE: Huh.
By Davelo on 12/30/2007 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
You could be correct and I should apologize to the guy I replied to. It may take an unorthodox method to break the light barrier but I think it can be done. Don't be so persuaded by Einstein's theories. They are after all only theories and have never been proved to be fact as you say. Even Einstein was questioning his own theories until he died.


RE: Huh.
By melgross on 12/30/2007 8:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
You THINK it can be done?

Where did you get your advanced degrees in physics from?


RE: Huh.
By euclidean on 12/31/2007 1:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think we'll just forget copyright laws and in 10 years steal the technology from the aliens...but that's just my thought...lol

I believe we'll get there some day....in my lifetime? I doubt it but It'd be soo cool if we did...In my kids lifetime? maybe...I think with a better energy source (cold fusion, etc) we'd have a lot better chance.


RE: Huh.
By Davelo on 12/31/2007 6:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that we are being visited is proof enough. Didn't you hear about what happened earlier this year at O'hare airport?


RE: Huh.
By mindless1 on 12/31/2007 7:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Let's worry about a theory of going faster than the speed of light a while after we manage to go even remotely close to the speed of light, m'kay?


RE: Huh.
By JKflipflop98 on 12/30/2007 9:12:39 PM , Rating: 1
Narrow minded men also said the same thing about sailing around the world and going to the moon.


RE: Huh.
By Rockjock51 on 12/28/2007 9:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Doubt we'll even get close to the speed of light in our lifetimes. Definitely not close enough for it to matter that you can't exceed it.


RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/28/2007 11:34:16 PM , Rating: 4
Depends on how you define it. A large particle accelerator already pushes particles to 99.99999% of the speed of light.

If you're talking about interstellar travel, we've had the technology to accelerate a spaceship to about 5% of the speed of light for decades-- all it takes is a large cargo of H-bombs and a massive "pusher" plate...just keep throwing a steady stream of bombs out the back.

Using nanotechnology to build an ultralight payload, we could potentially get to 25% of the speed of light or higher by using a solar sail-- nothing but an ultra-thin sheet of silverized polymer. Unfurl it close to the sun, and light pressure alone will quickly accelerate it. We could potentially build something like this in as little as 15-20 years.


RE: Huh.
By NullSubroutine on 12/29/2007 1:24:39 AM , Rating: 1
I believe they can get particles (perhaps its something else) beyond the speed of light in accelerators. I would get some links but I am at work.


RE: Huh.
By Goty on 12/29/2007 2:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, sorry. To travel at the speed of light you need to be massless, so no particles.


RE: Huh.
By NullSubroutine on 12/29/2007 7:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
hmmm, perhaps I was thinking of photons and quantum tunneling.


RE: Huh.
By Moritz on 12/29/2007 7:23:21 AM , Rating: 1
sorry, but they don't exactly "accelerate" photons.
about tunneling effect, yes, it permits particles with mass (such as neutrons) to travel at a speed higher than c. The catch is that it is an uncontrolled process with a small probability.


RE: Huh.
By Goty on 1/2/2008 9:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, another misconception. Quantum tunneling is an instance where a particle with a wave function that is "large" enough to extend past it's particular potential barrier happens to be found far enough outside of that barrier that it is able to escape. There's no actual "traveling" involved, the particle exists at all points along its wave function, there are just varying probabilities of finding it.


RE: Huh.
By Moritz on 1/7/2008 7:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
That would just put the entire concept of scanning tunneling microscopy to it's knees. Detecting currents means detecting directed displacement of electrons (as STM does).

of course you can't discuss the concept "travelling" if you are analyzing from a quantum point of view, interpreting the particle as a wave-packet, as it is dispersed allover the place, the probability of detecting it varies according to the point of were you try to detect it.

ok, now you can interpret the change in the wave-function that results from tunneling as a displacement of the particle, resulting in a "virtual" travelling, therefore it is not at all incorrect to say that the particle travelled, hence at a speed higher than c.

your academic preciosism neglected understanding me properly and also, downrating me.


RE: Huh.
By Rockjock51 on 12/29/2007 1:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
Even at 25% the speed of light, we're still a long ways away from 100%. Just meant that we're not gonna get to 100% in the next 50-70 years. If we're not at 100%, we don't need anyone to increase the speed of light is all.


RE: Huh.
By lompocus on 12/29/2007 2:18:03 AM , Rating: 1
I thought we had already surpassed the speed of light? It was also on dailytech. About 'time' stuff.

Apparently, when the little photon was accellerated it popped back in place before it accelerated and accellerated. Something to deal with time travel.


RE: Huh.
By TSS on 12/29/2007 9:50:14 AM , Rating: 4
don't forget where talking interstellar travel here. sure here on earth you'd need an almost infinite amount of energy to get there, since we know friction. it's much easyer in space, since once traveling at a certain speed you don't slow down.

that's also what those solar sails are built on. I've watched the discovery documentary and they figured they could even push it to 50% light speed with a sail... top speed. it takes ages to actually get to that speed, if it really was that fast we would've used it already. trust me no country in the world would let a possible first shot at the minerals of space untouched.

you can approach the speed of light with a booster rocket from the space shuttle, providing you can pump enough fuel in them to keep them going for 100+ years. i've seen another documentary on discovery about another space drive already in use by an probe called an ion drive. incredibly weak drive that is, but it's so darn efficient it lasts extremely long. that drive will be faster then a rocket in space because it's total thrust delivered is much higher.

i'm not even close to a rocket scientist, but that's the idea :P i'm pretty sure i've also remembered those documentary's correctly, since discovery needs to rerun them about 10 times before they get something new.


RE: Huh.
By PlasmaBomb on 12/30/2007 5:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ion drives are cool, but they won't get you to the speed of light. They become very inefficient when the speed of the vehicle is greater than that of the exhaust gases. You would have a similar problem with the shuttle boosters (even assuming you had 100 years of fuel, good luck with that one by the way).


RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2007 8:42:09 PM , Rating: 4
> "They become very inefficient when the speed of the vehicle is greater than that of the exhaust gases"

No. In space, the velocity of the craft is, in general, irrelevant. The velocity of the exhaust gases (or more properly, the reaction mass) is always relative to the ship itself. There's no reduction in efficiency (or anything else) at high velocities. Now, when operating in atmosphere, many propulsion systems are indeed affected by relative velocity, but that's a wholly different matter.

In any case, current ion thrusters operate with an Isp of about 4000 seconds, or about 10X more efficient than chemical rockets. That's still nowhere near high enough to propel a craft to anywhere near light speed.


RE: Huh.
By rushfan2006 on 12/31/2007 9:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
Of course let's just pretend for a moment that we magical can hit the speed of light - then there is that little issue of how human beings could survive the travel at that speed (and I"m not just talking about the aging effects either, just that's one small issue).


RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2007 10:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
There are no ageing effects from travelling at light speed. The "twin paradox" only occurs due to the acceleration required to make a "round trip", not innately from the speed of motion itself....and, in any case, its the twin who stayed home who ages, not the one who made the trip.


RE: Huh.
By JKflipflop98 on 1/1/2008 11:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
And did that particle suddenly become the size of the solar system because it's moving at the speed of light? No? Uh oh. . . looks like someone's theory isn't all it's cracked up to be.


RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 1/1/2008 7:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Eh?


RE: Huh.
By JKflipflop98 on 1/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2007 10:48:13 PM , Rating: 4
The fact that we haven't discovered anything moving faster than light has nothing to do with why we believe FTL travel impossible. It's has to do with relativity.

STR (Einstein's theory of relativity) is a theory with a great deal of experimental data to verify it. STR doesn't exactly forbid FTL travel, but it does say that moving (or even communicating) at FTL speeds implies causality violation. That means the effect of an action can occur before the action itself. Viola! Time travel...and all the paradoxes that go along with it.

There's also the side problem that accelerating any massy object to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. But that's a minor problem compared to the causality issue.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2007 11:46:54 PM , Rating: 4
> "That's fucking bullshit."

An admirably witty response, but unfortunately you've totally misunderstood the issue. FTL travel doesn't imply causality violation because the event arrives faster than the light allowing you to "see" it.

If you can send a message faster than light (or physically carry it yourself), then you can send a message into your own past. Or alternatively, you can receive a reply to your message before you send it.

As to WHY this is true, I can't explain it without delving into light cones and Lorentz transformations, but the logic behind it is irrefutable. If STL is correct, then FTL travel implies time travel. If time travel is possible...why then so is moving faster than the speed of light.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By rushfan2006 on 12/31/2007 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
Nope - Masher is right. You are severely over-simplifying things in your, "brilliantly succinct and respectuful reply". :)

Um...moving along - I too have read a few books (science interests me - beyond that I'm not a scientists/professor or anything - just call me a "fan" of science) on what Masher delves into. If this debate heats up - I'll find time to post the bib on the information I have and you can see for yourself (as can the others in this thread who greatly over simplfy things) a myriad of well respected scientists both living and dead who dedicated their lives on this very topic - FTL and time travel.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2007 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
> "now imagine that anything that travels faster than that slow down light should travel time."

No. The speed of light in a vacuum is the cosmic speed limit. Exceed that, and you're essentially travelling backwards in time. You're free to exceed the (slower) speed of light in other materials without problem.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2007 3:50:01 PM , Rating: 3
> " WTF is just light speed it could have been anything else as well like wind speed..."

It could have been, but it wasn't. You ask a good question, though. What really is so special about the speed of light?

The answer is simple. The speed of light is the same for all observers...a result verified experimentally countless times. If you hold a flashlight facing east, you'll measure the speed of the beam at 1.0c. An observer travelling due west at 0.5c will measure the beam speed not as 1.5c, but as just c. Similarly, an observer travelling due east at 0.5c will see the beam moving at c as well.

Couple the invariance of the speed of light with the principle that the laws of physics are the same in all (inertial) reference frames, and you can easily derive the fact that FTL travel = time travel. There are numerous explanations of WHY this is true on the web. Google up one or two and have at it.


RE: Huh.
By JKflipflop98 on 1/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 1/1/2008 7:57:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "God, people cling to this old archaic way of thinking due to some guys theory with so many holes in it"

From your choice of name, I assume you're an electrical engineer, or at least studying to become one. Why not be a *good* engineer and learn about a subject before attempting to critique it?

STR is not "some guy's theory with many holes in it". It is one of the most experimentally validated theories in all of science. Time dilation, mass dilation, length contraction, energy/matter equivalence-- all have been verified countless times.


RE: Huh.
By Davelo on 12/31/2007 7:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's STR nonsense. Don't believe it. It's full of paradoxes.


RE: Huh.
By JKflipflop98 on 1/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By cochy on 1/1/2008 9:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
What you're trying to say is that our current knowledge of reality and the laws that govern it are still quite primitive. Therefore we have no where near perfect knowledge of what can and can not be done. Hence anything might still be possible with new discoveries. In time.

I agree with that.


RE: Huh.
By SlyNine on 12/31/2007 7:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
arrived 2 weeks before it was sent and one of the NBA players watched it. Then you would have a paradox in witch that tape could effect his course of action.

However it is more likely that it would rip space time and form a blackhole, Since at C an objects mass becomes infinite.

The thing I'd like to point out is their are no laws saying we cannot manipulate space time and create a warp field of some kind, Remember we are traveling at something like 2% the speed of light circling I galaxy and we have no clue how fast our galaxy is moving. The physicists Iv heard think that we are already in some sort of field just being in our galaxy.

Their may be other options then simply brute forcing and object threw space time and above the speed of light.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2007 11:49:33 PM , Rating: 3
By the same thinking, since men now weigh much less than battleships, in the future we'll all weigh more than them...?

You might want to reconsider the rather dubious chain of logic that led you to this conclusion.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Huh.
By rushfan2006 on 12/31/2007 9:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Speed of light ? give me a break, if humans haven't discovered until now another thing to travels faster than light that doesn't mean u cannot travel faster than light.


LMAO - enlighten us o brilliant one of all and nothing. You are the Alpha and the Omega.


RE: Huh.
By qwertyz on 12/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Huh.
By sabre lime on 12/29/2007 4:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
Surprising with a capital 'S'.


By doctat on 12/29/2007 1:22:00 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you guys can stop arguing about comic books, er I mean religion long enough to chat about the actual topic at hand?

What are the particulars of a telescope needed to actually visibly check out some of these planets?

Who's got what going up when, and when can we expect some fuzzy pictures?

I can imagine people pretty much losing their shit, if a picture of say, a Saturn-like planet orbiting another star, turned up online. How cool would that be!




By doctat on 12/29/2007 3:00:40 AM , Rating: 1
take a look at the comments guy, and tell me again people aren't railing on about religion in this thread.

my post happened to land higher up than that drivel.

i was trying to bring about on-topic comments, until your fellow bible thumpers down-modded my legit question.


By lompocus on 12/29/2007 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
you're just encouraging religious debate!


By Ringold on 12/29/2007 3:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
Something tells me the picture won't be worth looking at. If the past is any guide, it's probably about a pixel in size, and if anything it'll wobble back and forth. It's just that a lot of information can get stripped from said wobbly pixel.

At the very least, doubt it'll make a cool desktop background.

Perhaps the Terrestrial Planet Finder will give us something a little better to drool over, though, once it's in space.

Until then, Battlestar Galactica returns to the air in March..


It could be possible
By Nik00117 on 12/29/2007 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think the biggest failure of man kind on this issue is our refusal to believe in faster then light travel. We must overcome this barrier itself before we can think of going faster then light.

I believe it possible, and I believe its possible in our lifetime. My great grandma is 81 years old and shes still healthy and doing quite well. Well 70 years old the idea of a plane was new, the idea of how we use planes today wasn't up to par. The TV wasn't out yet, then the biggest revoluation of all. The computer and internet. When she was 10 the idea of a computer which one would own (and most likely several) which would have access to everyone another computer on a network was msot likely unfathamble. It was unbelieveable little to know it 70 years later (within a lifetime) it was possible

calling anything impossible is stupid. Calling something very difficult is a much better title.

Its would be very difficult to go faster then the speed of light. Do I believe its possible? course I do. I don't mark anything as impossible.




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/2/2008 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Just good ol' gumption will overcome the laws of physics? Now that is what I call logical positivism! Good enough to overcome difficult engineering problems, like all the ones in your list, but you can't believe away the laws of physics. If it is as easy as that, why haven't you done it already?


Brainpower
By kenji4life on 12/30/2007 9:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps when we use parts of our brain that we hadn't used before, we will discover the ability to travel through time and space on a whim. Kind of like Q on Star Trek or The Traveler.




RE: Brainpower
By Jellodyne on 12/31/2007 12:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
And maybe we'll be able use our minds to FLY on BROOMS, like in Harry Potter. Just because its on Star Trek doesn't mean its not 'magic'.


Reality?
By BillyBoy on 12/30/2007 3:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
There's already evidence (already discussed here) that faster-than-light travel is possible. Modern quantum physics has shown all kinds of possibilities. The biggest current obstacle is doing away with Einstein's -theory- of relativity. It's a theory because it has been shown to have major flaws. Our understanding of phenomena (science) is very, very rudimentary and not even close to being as highly developed as is commonly believed. We'll (humans) keep finding out how dumb we were yesterday as long as science continues. I suspect that many currently fundamental scientific "facts" will go the way of the flat-earth theory within my lifetime and that things will be perceived quite differently by the time I die.




RE: Reality?
By Shining Arcanine on 12/30/2007 11:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is a theory because it is shown to have flaws. Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory because it is speculative, much like Quantum Physics, which can also be attributed to Einstein. Neither of the two, to Einstein's great dissatisfaction, have been shown to have flaws, which is something that Einstein wanted to show when he stated that Quantum Entanglement was predicted by Quantum Theory.


Peak?
By KingViper on 12/29/2007 2:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think "peek" would be the proper spelling.




why bring up religion?
By rodrigu3 on 12/30/2007 12:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
Whenever there's a DT article on something scientific, why is it that some troll comes around and believes their comments are relevant? Seriously I don't mind skipping such posts, but when people start having a full-length discussion on religion in a non-religious context, it makes these posts a waste of space.

Stick to the topic please and go troll some other site. Most of the people here stick to the topic so don't ruin it for everyone.

Interplanetary travel in our lifetime outside of the solar system is pretty much impossible. I don't believe that with our current technology, faster-than-light travel is possible. Saying something like that is not being narrow-minded, it's being realistic and practical. First you have to achieve goals that are within your reach and then consider pursuing higher levels of complexity and difficulty. I say we get someone on Mars or maybe even one of Jupiter's moons first before moving on to somewhere beyond our solar system.




Teleportation & FTL com are possible
By Fritzr on 12/30/2007 3:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
Scientific American has been publishing some pieces on "entangled particles". This state allows 2 particles with a wide seperation to transmit information at Faster than light speed. One possible application of this is a Star Trek type transporter. They have already succeeded in teleporting a particle ... they are working on ways to teleport small clusters of particles :)

This is a brand new branch of quantum physics that is being investigated now. Quantum physics itself was first thought of within the last hundred years and much of today's tech is based on research in that new branch of physics. Who knows, this latest expansion of theoretical physics may lead to practical FTL devices in the lifetimes of some of our younger readers :)

For those who say FTL can't be done because today's theory forbids it, they forget that science is the study of reality not the other way around. There is much that is possible that is still unknown to science simply because no-one has worked out the rules or even considered the possibility of many of the things that wait to be discovered in the future.

Modern tech exists because scientists and crackpots kept trying to make impossible things work. Sometimes they succeeded and today we are posting these messages on one of those harebrained ideas :D




FTL Travel and Time travel
By kabouki on 12/31/2007 8:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
In the first place, there are no definitive laws in physics. Each theory that is proven under certain circunstances is given a law status, for those circunstances. So what is under discussion when we speak of the impossibility of FTL travel is the impossibility of measuring that speed under our current scope of mass, energy and dimensions. The postulates of STR were achieved by Einstein to answer questions that involved variance of form in the second law of newtonian physics when applied to maxwell's equations of light propagation. When everyone was trying to catch something wrong on maxwell's equations, einstein went the "simple" way of questioning why would time be the same in the two referentials. Perhaps someone will show up with some crazy but simple idea that enlarges the scope of relativity and quantum physics and alows FTL travel. Being the current state of matter, energy and dimensions a situation where that is impossible.
About time travel, the scope of STR are within velocities smaller than that of light, so one cannot use STR equations over the speed of light and expect "viable" results. Even so, let's assume FTL travel results in time travel, since you reach your destiny before you departed, there is one thing one should wonder: why don't we see people coming from the future? I mean if FTL is what people say here then we should have lot's of visitors from the future...




space faring!
By thepinkpanther on 12/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: space faring!
By lompocus on 12/29/2007 4:06:34 PM , Rating: 1
The only thing is that you run a very high risk of creating a von neumann (that's the right doomsday weapon, right?) device in the process. And, what if there's already people on the planet? It'll eat them up to to manufacture a habitable world.

Von neumann device: a thing that came from this dude's book. Robots ate up mars to make minerals, after mars they 'thought' about how to make more minerals, so they made spaceships, so they ate up the solar system, so they needed more minerals, so they usd the minerals they had to get even more minerals, so they used the ones they had to make ftl travel to eat up the whole galaxy, eventually spreading across the universe.


extra info....
By excrucio on 12/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: extra info....
By lompocus on 12/29/07, Rating: -1
speaking of downrating..
By kenji4life on 12/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: speaking of downrating..
By alienbibin on 12/29/2007 12:12:48 AM , Rating: 3
This is a tech site where people share their opinion on science and why do u post such things which are not related to the topic....!! And though I am a christian, i like your idea. Every religion teach us to love each other...thats it...!


RE: speaking of downrating..
By kenji4life on 12/29/2007 3:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. It went off topic long before I posted, but that's not the point. I read the bashing of Mormons and felt it important to say something.

As far as travel, I think the key is to figure out how to communicate beyond light speed. If there is some sort of "subspace" which is on another dimensional plane beyond the 3 of space, it would be our best bet. Perhaps the key to time travel is also the key to space travel?


RE: speaking of downrating..
By rajaf on 12/29/2007 3:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
That would be what some have called hyperspace no?

Or maybe we can prove that wormholes do actually exist, and maybe they turn out to actually be tunnels through space and time?

Who knows what the future can bring... but I'm really optimistic about it.

And as a side note to your earlier post:

quote:
we could live peacefully together, despite our religious (or non-religious) differences, because our morals line up.


A lot of religious people of the christian following I've met in North America seem to think that I will go to hell if I don't believe in their god (I'm orthodox by the way, but I don't agree with these stories you find in bibles)
and that is somehow something fundamentally wrong with me.


RE: speaking of downrating..
By kenji4life on 12/29/2007 6:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who tells you that you are wrong or condemned is in my opinion misinterpreting God's will. If Jesus was truly even close to the man that the Bible says he is, he would be the last person to discriminate against anyone. I believe that anything or anyone that tells you that other people are going to hell because of their beliefs are hardly the authority on or of anything. I do not believe that the Bible that many people read is the word of god. I believe it is the word of people, and that if there is a god, (which by the way I'm not saying that there is, or isn't) he would not want any of the horrible things that were done (by humans) in his name.

Personally, I think that whether or not there is a God, it's our moral obligation to do good in this world and be happy and others happy and try to make our lives in this world meaningful ones. It has nothing to do with any religion, any belief or any doctrine, it's basic human nature.

Again we go off topic.

I have a hard time with the idea of a "wormhole" in the sense of something that is actually visible in space or time. I lean more towards the stargate / event horizon / dimensional portal / whatever you want to call it. It just seems to make more sense to me, that if something was able to transcend time, space or both, that it's limit wouldn't be physical. It would more be a passageway. Kind of like in the matrix, where you can walk through a door in a hallway and it'll take you to another "program" or world. It would seem at that point that we might question reality, if we could travel millions, billions, and exponentially larger numbers of miles away, instantaneously.

Of course, that's why all of this stuff is science fiction. It would take a great leap (like a quantum one) to get to the point where we could spend the time, money, research, and study on the kinds of methods that would even touch upon this type of portal.


RE: speaking of downrating..
By kenji4life on 12/29/2007 7:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
On the portal thing:

Hypothetically, if we did create such a passageway or portal, what would prevent things from coming in or out, or more importantly, how would we be able to pass things through it? Would the laws of physics cease to exist for this portal? Surely they would have to be rewritten because of it's very existence. It would be a breakthrough beyond anything ever discovered. It would minimize the discovery of fire, a new world (one that isn't flat), or medicine to heal people who would surely otherwise die.

So even if in this hypothetical scenario, this portal existed, how would it work? What would define the dimensions of the opening(s) of this portal? Somehow this portal that would deny everything that we have come to know would have to define a way for us to use it.

Effective theory is still in it's infancy, so if it is possible for us to grasp the idea of such a thing, I really wonder if that possibility exists anywhere in the lifetime of human existence. Perhaps if we manage to survive as a species a few more hundred thousand, million, billion or so years, we might finally discover this kind of technology. Until then, I'll just continue enjoying good sci-fi flicks for which I don't have to question the science, as I know that I don't need to. I can just sit back and pretend that in some other dimension, what I'm watching is real.


RE: speaking of downrating..
By Senju on 12/29/2007 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that we will need to build a machine that can change living object to massless particles which we could beem accross the universe. Once we reach the target (maybe thousands of years), we have another machine to re-generate our physical body. Trying to travel vast distances in space using conventional spaceships will probably not work. One thing is cool is beeming for a thousand of years will feel like a second. Lets just hope some external aliens have evolved enough with their technologies and introduce us to it. This way, we can just adopt their tech and evolve more quickly.


RE: speaking of downrating..
By kenji4life on 12/29/2007 12:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with this solution is that we would still need to both send the machine to the destination first, and account for the travel time of the fastest method of communication we have available to us, which is still the speed of light. Even if such a device existed, and we have already sent it to it's destination, the journey would still take at minimum the amount of time that light would need to travel.


RE: speaking of downrating..
By Spuke on 12/29/2007 2:41:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye.
MATTHEW 7:1-5. A problem with most religions is that PEOPLE refuse to read and heed their own holy writings.


RE: speaking of downrating..
By BikeDude on 12/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: speaking of downrating..
By kenji4life on 12/29/2007 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You had to make "You shouldn't treat others how you don't wish to be treated yourself." one of your bullet points.


You must have missed the part that I said these are things that good people live by, which has nothing to do with Christianity, besides the obvious commandment.

quote:
There are several documented cases where someone subscribing to a Christian faith has chosen to treat women differently. Denying them basic human rights. Both in recent history and... Well, turn the clock back 100 years, and they weren't even allowed to vote. And there is still a massive resistance towards women clergy...men.


I also said that if there was a God, that he would be ashamed of the things done in his name. I don't get it, are you trying to agree with me, while sounding like you are not? Perhaps you are just trying to prove my points?

quote:
Religion serves to control the masses. It is a tool used by priests and non-elected leaders to heighten their own importance and earhtly gains.


I neither support controlling the masses or condemn them, if sheep they must be, then they shall be herded like sheep.

quote:
Tolerance seems to be a new concept introduced as the backlash against religion is growing stronger. We atheists must surely respect religious people, because they themselves are so "tolerant?"


I agree somewhat with you here. But I don't expect anyone to be respected because they are or are not religious. I only expect everyone to respect each other as humans living on this planet.

quote:
Or maybe we should just burn them at the stake, like so many "tolerant" Christians did to "witches" in the middle ages?


Your sarcastic point is understood, but not appreciated. I'm not sure that "all Christians" should be associated with all of the things that have been done wrongly in the name of Christ. Likewise, all Muslims should not be persecuted for extremist attacks. All Japanese should not be held accountable for the slaying of Christians in Japan, and not all Germans should be considered Nazis. This is one of the most over-abused fallacies against religion.

quote:
I don't mind religious people, but they should keep their worshipping to themselves, and not come aknocking on my door to spread the "good word".


I agree with you, in my case. When people knock on my door, I politely tell them that I am Shinto-Buddhist, and am not interested. I close the door (whether or not my polite refusal is accepted). I'm not sure that it's a good idea to do mean things to these people who are only trying to help people. Religion may be a double edged sword, but to deny that it has ever helped people would be a gross oversight. You cannot point out every bad thing done in the name of religion without recognizing the good things, like feeding and sheltering the needy. Not all churches are as evil as you make them sound.

quote:
I would also like to remind you that one of the ten commandments is "You shall have no other gods before me". This combined with St Paul's missionary activities had caused a great many conflicts and suffering all over the world. To Christians, everyone not praying only to the Christian God, is a sinner (in breach of the ten commandments). A dangerous mixture in the wrong hands. :( Tolerance? That word does not describe the Christian mentality at all in any way, unless preceded by the adverb 'not'.


I would like you to know that though these moral values I outlined happen to be likened to the commandments, I dare you to find a good person who will disagree with them. They (the ones I mentioned) are not restricted to any single group or person. I will remind you that I am not a Christian, but a Shinto Buddhist. For those that don't know, Buddhism isn't really a religion but a way of life, and Shinto is the worship of the earth. My religion answers to no god. That being said, My girlfriend is a practicing Hindu, my father is a strong minded Atheist (like yourself), and I am friends with many Christians, whom have no problem with my choice of life. I give each of them the respect that I expect them to give me. I agree with many of the points that my father makes, and I agree with many of yours, but I do not feel so strongly that the religious masses are all unilaterally "sheep". Many people believe in God and do not follow and specific denomination or religion, and they should not be bunched together with the fanatics who have clearly lost touch with reality.

quote:
Anyway, under no circumstance should religion be confused with science. Quoting the book of mormons when commenting a science related news blurb seems a bit ill-advised. Some stuff in the Bible might very well turn out to be correct, but a scientific method needs to be the foundation to judge that. Without scientific proof, someone would probably be better off praying to the flying spaghetti monster. Blind "belief" is not something one should bother other people with.


I don't think religion should be confused with science either. I believe in evolution, infinite space (not big bang), and many other things that you probably do as well. The "religion" that I subscribe to doesn't change my rational thinking, it only guides me as a person to do the right things in my life. Now, you may argue that an atheist can do all this without religion, and I would simply say "yes, and I respect them just the same as anyone".

quote:
Merry Yule (NOT "Christmas") to you all and a Happy New Year.


I celebrated Christmas this year with my Hindu girlfriend, Atheist father, Shinto Buddhist mother, and free thinking sisters. We recognize the holiday as a time to give and wear terrible colors like red and green together.

P.S. My Father was raised Catholic, and given your strong feelings towards religion, I would be willing to bet that you may also have been force fed religion, or else had a father that did.

I hope that you don't take anything I have said as disrespect, but I had to reply as I disagreed with some of the things you said. I didn't want you to continue to misinterpret what I said.

With Love,

K.Hoy


RE: speaking of downrating..
By BikeDude on 12/29/07, Rating: 0